The referred article is about a computer system for analysing history. But I noted a reference to changes in social complexity** in five different societies in the past. China. Ancient Egypt. Italy (Roman Empire) Pakistan Peru.

What interested me is that social complexity continued to grow, or fell but weakly, despite collapse of empire. It is often stated that societies rise and fall. The Roman Empire is often quoted as the example. But if you measure that society in terms of social complexity, then the falls are actually no big deal. For example, during the rise of empire, Rome's social complexity rose 9 fold, but when Rome fell, its social complexity dropped only 10%.

So this makes the idea of the fall of great empires into something of a myth. The empire may not dominate any more, and its military may not be charging around conquering other nations, but the complexity of its society drops only to a relatively minor degree. Perhaps the idea of the fall is somewhat overstated?

I also note that, over the 6,000 years of the published graph, the trend globally is up and up. The local falls are small, and the average trend is always to more social complexity.

This may have implications for the future. Lots of people, including academics, have this belief that human society will eventually collapse. But the historical trends deny this. If collapses to date have been only small and temporary, why do we believe that there will be a big global collapse some time in the future. It is said that if we do not study history, we are doomed to repeat it. But history over 6,000 years is the history of the rise, rise, and yet more rising of humanity. If we are doomed to repeat that, we are not so badly off.

**Social complexity was measured for these empires using 53 measured markers over time. Such things as population size, number of roles in society, architecture, the use of sophisticated taxation methods, peace treaties with other nations, retention of knowledge in libraries and texts etc.

Interesting idea there. Kinda parallels my first intro to history that "it is more than just military history".... and then we studied almost exclusively the military history... with a poem here and there for balance.

OTOH--if an invading army comes in and you are sold into slavery, I would give your latest complexity a measure of zero.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OTOH--if an invading army comes in and you are sold into slavery, I would give your latest complexity a measure of zero.

As an individual, yes. But this measure is for an entire society. Invading armies are a commonplace through history, and rather often, the invaded society just goes right on going. In fact, the invaders may bring more richness to that society in the long run.

Fair call.............or does it throw into perspective "the value" of complexity? Hmmmm....opposed to military history is "social history" and I wonder how much of 99% of peoples lives up until about the 20th century was devoted to farming?...and how much complexity is there in that????

So.... if I were going to pay for access to any website today...it would be Scientific american. In my failure, I'll just have to wonder what "complexity" even means, or what it is worth.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

If you want access to new scientific information, but do not feel wealthy enough to pay a subscription, try the online magazine 'ScienceDaily'. Google it and subscribe for free. It has a lot of good stuff.

Thanks Lance...I often do google Sci Amer article subjects to find the referenced information. Not very much luck there though. Money is one issue...but I'd feel "stupid" to buy a subscription and then not read every word. Right now....I just don't have the time. Ha, ha..... its not my prioritization, and maybe I should. No....... its what I identify in so many "other" people: stuck in a rut.

I'm only hooman.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Might be more complex.............but its a bad complex as much as I can figure out.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

The referred article is about a computer system for analysing history. But I noted a reference to changes in social complexity** in five different societies in the past. China. Ancient Egypt. Italy (Roman Empire) Pakistan Peru.

What interested me is that social complexity continued to grow, or fell but weakly, despite collapse of empire. It is often stated that societies rise and fall. The Roman Empire is often quoted as the example. But if you measure that society in terms of social complexity, then the falls are actually no big deal. For example, during the rise of empire, Rome's social complexity rose 9 fold, but when Rome fell, its social complexity dropped only 10%.

So this makes the idea of the fall of great empires into something of a myth. The empire may not dominate any more, and its military may not be charging around conquering other nations, but the complexity of its society drops only to a relatively minor degree. Perhaps the idea of the fall is somewhat overstated?

I also note that, over the 6,000 years of the published graph, the trend globally is up and up. The local falls are small, and the average trend is always to more social complexity.

This may have implications for the future. Lots of people, including academics, have this belief that human society will eventually collapse. But the historical trends deny this. If collapses to date have been only small and temporary, why do we believe that there will be a big global collapse some time in the future. It is said that if we do not study history, we are doomed to repeat it. But history over 6,000 years is the history of the rise, rise, and yet more rising of humanity. If we are doomed to repeat that, we are not so badly off.

**Social complexity was measured for these empires using 53 measured markers over time. Such things as population size, number of roles in society, architecture, the use of sophisticated taxation methods, peace treaties with other nations, retention of knowledge in libraries and texts etc.

How did they define 'social complexity'? Unless they defined it, the article isn't worth much.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero